By Jack E. LohmanPublished September 7th 2008 in throwtherascalsout.org

Our winner-take-all electoral system contributed to the Florida fiasco in
2000 and promises to plague us many times over. We should switch to a
voting system called Instant Runoff Voting, or preferential voting, as
proposed by www.FairVote.org.

Australia has used the system for years, and several U.S. cities are now
switching to IRV, which is also called “majority voting” because the
winner must get a majority.

Each
ballot contains check boxes for your first, second, third and
subsequent choices. It is simple, fair and easy to administer with
optical card reading systems, which have proven to be the most reliable
and easily accommodate both computer counting and hand counting
verification.

Suppose there are three candidates, Satan, Saint, and Angel. Most
people (60%) prefer Angel or Saint over Satan, but their votes are split
— 35% for Angel and 25% for Saint. Nonetheless, Satan wins with 40%, well
short of a majority, and proceeds to advance the cause of evil over the
period of his term. That’s the current system!

Instant runoff voting solves this “spoiler” dilemma by eliminating
the person with the least votes (Saint), and holding an immediate, second
computerized round in the election, dividing Saint’s votes amongst their
2nd choices so that voters elect a candidate that the majority (>51%)
prefers over the loser. In this case, assuming all of Saint’s supporters
would prefer Angel over Satan, Angel would win with 60% to Satan’s
40%.

This is easily done with a simple matrix ballot and immediate
computerized totaling. If the voter is confused about the ballot and
makes an error, it is automatically rejected and he can immediately
recast his vote (you can only have one “first choice,” one “second
choice” and so on).

Too confusing? Then vote for one person the old fashioned way. You are
not obligated to mark a second choice, but those who have a second choice
may mark that candidate too. See an online sample HERE.

The advantage to incumbents and challengers alike is that they only need
to run one campaign, the general election. Primaries would no longer be
needed. And because challengers will not want to alienate voters who may
give them their “second choice” on the card, they are not as likely to
sling mud and incumbents are not as likely to have their reputations
trashed (deserving as that sometimes may be).

Third-party candidates:

This system gives third-party candidates a chance to demonstrate their
real support, and we’d really know where Democrat and Republican support
is lacking. But that’s also why the current duopoly will oppose it.
They’d rather keep third-party support to its absolute minimum, and the
current system forces the Green, Reform and Libertarian voters to cast
their precious vote for the lesser of the two evils. (If they vote their
conscience they in effect throw their vote away completely. I’ve done
that too many times.)

Under the current system the two parties appear to be the most popular by
the public, even though there are many independents with more popular
positions. But since the R’s and D’s are calling the shots, our only
chance to change the current system will require extreme public pressure
(or a totally new regime in November).

Other electoral approaches that should be considered are the
parliamentary system and proportional representation, but when you have
congressmen who currently enjoy a 90% reelection advantage fostered by
our moneyed political system, their priorities are naturally aimed more
at self interest than public interest.

IRV makes total sense and will benefit the public, but perhaps nothing
will change until we have a complete turnover in our elected officials.
(Now, there’s a thought!)

This system is fair, and that may be its biggest downfall. The last
thing in the world today’s politicians want is “fair.” They like their
90% reelection advantage just as it is, and they like the two-party
see-saw to themselves and don’t want to share.